While I am interested in the general idea of basic income, I have long and strenuously disagreed with basic income guru-evangelist Scott Santens' specifics.
That starts with Santens' bad math. If you can't get the math right (and Scott didn't even come close), you've lost credibility. Especially when you also add some loss-leader angles into your pitch.
Above all, I ABSOLUTELY reject his idea of replacing part of Social Security with basic income. Beyond that, I reject replacing unemployment benefits, disability income, or other safety net items with basic income. Behind that, I reject his "solutionism" idea of simply throwing out the door any social program that doesn't work as well as he claims (puffery and all) BI would.
Second, I reject his ancillary claims, like the one that BI will magically reduce stress.
Third, I called on Santens, and call on others, to consider guaranteed employment as an alternative to BI.
Fourth, especially given One and Two, and per a long review of a long Boston Review seminar written roundtable, I encourage people to know what is realistic and what is not.
In general, I've already thought his BI ideas too libertarian, and too susceptible to being further manipulated by harder-core libertarians.
And now, and also based in part on an old Tweet of his claiming BI is "neither liberal nor conservative," I'm wondering just how libertarian Scott is himself.
That wonderment is increased by seeing he is a cryptocurrency enthusiast. No, he's more than that.
As with BI, he's a cryptocurrency guru-evangelist. I'd forgotten that I'd seen hints of this before, but this is full blown.
NO. Cryptocurrencies, IMO, are part of libertarian wet dreams for undermining nation-states. Santens idea of a Fed-based crypto would be soundly rejected by real crypto backers, as would his other ideas that seem to try to weld a national cryptocurrency with something like Modern Monetary Theory. I think I just threw up in Scott's mouth. (I've written before about the Maoist cult of MMT.)
He repeats his BI stress reduction claims about crypto.
What should be the bottom line for any Green.
AND, if we're going to be serious about climate change, we MUST address how much electricity cryptocurrency bitmining expends. (I wouldn't even ask Santens to comment on that; I'm sure he'd give a puff answer that's not true.)
So, Greens like Laura Palmer? Feel free to out BI, but as I told her on Twitter, do NOT tout Santens' version of it when I'm around. It's climate-change unfriendly, at least as it stands now.
Side note: If I am understanding him correctly, Douglas Rushkoff thinks cryptocurrency is, well, is, a semi-Ponzi scheme. And I wouldn't argue.